Forums

Transfer budget in odd numbered increments Topic

- I need an extra $1.3 million in my prospect budget, so I have to transfer from my player payroll.
- HBD rules require that I transfer $4 million, forfeiting $2 million, with the other $2 mil going to prospects.

So now, in addition to forfeiting $2 mil into the wind, I have an extra $700,000 in prospect budget that I don't really need. The $700,000 amount is also too small to transfer back to player budget if I need a little room to accommodate a trade. Sure, I can sign a mediocre IFA with the extra money, but I don't really need one, and anyone I sign for that amount will be of little benefit to my franchise outside of minor league service.

What would be the harm in allowing this:

- I need an extra $1.3 million in my prospect budget, so I have to transfer from my player payroll.
- HBD now lets me transfer just $3 million, so I only need to forfeit $1.5 million, with the other $1.5 mil going to prospects.

Now I get to keep an extra $1 million in my player payroll, just in case I need a midseason replacement FA due to an injury, or if I need a little budget room for a trade. And my prospect budget now has a much smaller amount left over, so there will be less money going to waste.

The rule itself won't change, you'll still need to forfeit 50% of whatever is transferred. I have no problem with that. It just never made sense to me why HBD has a problem with decimal points.

tecwrg - I agree carryover from one season to the next is a terrible idea. Not what I'm saying.

If you have extra money in the Coaching budget after coaching signing is done, you should be able to spend it on player salaries or bonuses. No transfer penalty.

If you think all of the FAs you're interested in are way too expensive, you should be able to invest that money in IFAs without paying a penalty.

That's how money it works in the real world. As time goes on, we get more and better information. So we change our plans on how we spend our money.

HBD requires us to make the most important money decisions at the point in the game when we have the least information. The transfer penalty takes a tremendous amount of strategy out of the game. And reduces the options and the fun of playing. It might be the worst idea the developers of the game had.

I can go along with a transfer from coaching budget to either player payroll or prospect without a transfer penalty, provided it's done during a grace period. Maybe between the end of coach signing until the end of spring training. After that, you incur the penalty.

I'll disagree that the transfer penalty takes strategy out of the game. I'll argue that it puts more strategy into the game, as it makes budgeting more important. Setting a budget and then having to play within it IS part of the strategy of the game. Remove the transfer penalty, and you might as well just have one big pool of money for coaches, prospect and payroll. That would dumb down the game.

Since I've done a complete 180 on this, I'd be curious to hear why a pool, with a floor for prospect, would be "bad" for the game. As tuft said, we have very limited info when setting budgets. For the most part, we're just trying to guess what 31 others will do. With the 4m increments in changing budgets, it's not like you can decide full-bore IFA after FA. You've either budget enough to see good IFA or you haven't.

If you intend to buy $20 of apples at the store, and the store only has $10 worth of apples, you don't have to take a $5 penalty to buy some cherries too.

Like Mike, I've kind of done a 180 on the idea. I understand the original concept - "we'd like you to set a plan, and be forced to stick with it unless you take a significant penalty, because otherwise there'd be potential for tremendous dicking around."

In practice, just how tremendous and runamok would the dicking around actually be? In my world I already see over half the owners transferring liberally, which indicates to me that they sort of expect to do so from the outset of the season. Many carry relatively low committed player salaries and, being veterans, have well defined plans for their scouting $, which leaves them sometimes carrying an extra 30 million or so in payroll... which is obviously targeted to be moved elsewhere when needed.

In short, I wonder whether the penalty is not a precautionary measure which, while well-intentioned, ends up having little or no tangible effect.

Two owners have 40m in cap space and both covet a 36 y/o pitcher. Bidding gets crazy, as it often does, and Owner A offers the max deal. So, at 40, you have a pitcher making 20m. Owner B says "That's bullshit. I'm not giving him 20m at 40." So Owner B, when FA is done, has 40m in leftover payroll. IMO, he did the "right" thing. But, because of that, he's going to get a 20m penalty, thus playing the season with 165m, when he transfers that money to prospect.

As a commish, I want the owners to do the "right" thing. If Owner A misses the MWR, or just has to give up HBD, I've got a team to fill that's holding a bad contract.